Author
Topic: Fundamentalism (Read 5237 times)

Fundamentalism, whether Protestant or Orthodox, has essentially the same attributes, and manifests itself in essentially the same ways. So, when I speak in this post of fundamentalism I am speaking of both the Protestant and the Orthodox versions of this problem. Orthodox fundamentalism and Protestant fundamentalism are, really, nothing more than two sides of the same coin. Thankfully, though, the cure to fundamentalism (of whatever group) is the same no matter what group you are in.

I don't claim to have the exact definition of fundamentalism, but if I had to describe it, I would say that wherever fundamentalism is, Christian virtues such as humility, soberness, gentleness, patience, non-judgmentalism, love, and so forth are, to a greater or lesser degree, absent or distorted. In other words, the more fundamentalist one is, the less these virtues are able to spring from the soul of a person and manifest themselves in outward actions. Fundamentalism, then, is what happens when someone made in the image of God becomes spiritually ill in a rigid and self-righteous way.

The main root of fundamentalism is the mindset: "We're right, you're not." This mindset is the exact opposite of the patristic view of humility, which teaches us to consider everyone as good as--or better than--we are. As Christians, we are taught to second-guess our opinions, and to not rely on our own judgment as to what is correct and incorrect. Not before we have cleansed the nous, anyway. If someone does correct another, it should be because they have been purified, and because they have the authority/role for doing so (e.g., a Priest correct a Parishioner, or a Father correcting a Son).

But the root of fundamentalism makes people think that anyone and everyone has the right to correct and contradict others, based simply on the premise that they have correct information and that others are wrong. The degree to which someone has been healed of their spiritual sickness is irrelevant. All that matters is that fundamentalists are correct, and have information that they think others should have (whether the people want the informration, or really need it, is irrelevant).

Fundamentalism has a certain narrowness of vision, an inability to see beyond the limited scope that has been chosen by it's adherents. This lack of perspective is what the Scripture speaks of when it warns us to be sober, for fundamentalism is really intellectual laziness, and the letting down of the guard of one's heart. People are sometimes so busy attacking others that they do not realize that they have let the gates to their own heart open. Fundamentalism is letting oneself off with the easiest (and many times self-congratulatory) answers.

Often a fundamentalist seems very knowledgeable about what they speak: exactly because they speak in such a narrow way and have studied in such a narrow way. By not having to worry about love, gentleness, etc., and by having spent so much time debating a small selection of topics, they have been able to spend all of their time sharpening their apologetical arguments, and fashioning like some word-smith the most persuasive rhetoric.

Thus, fundamentalism can many times sound very logical and correct. The fundamentalist proof texts in such a way that what he is saying seems like the only logical end to the situation or doctrine being talked about. Of course, the fundamentalist (many times unwittingly) rarely gives all the data necessary to come to the proper conclusion: but one (especially if they are inexperienced or uneducated on the matter) can get so caught up in the rhetoric that they totally miss the fact that much information and perspective is lacking. So when the fundamentalist gives proof texts from what he claims to be infallible sources, this can sometimes be very persuasive.

The fundamentalist, in fact if not in words, claims to be an infallible interpreter. Of course, what the fundamentalist says is something like "It is obvious to everyone," or "The truth is obvious," or "Anyone can see what is right here, let those who have eyes see". They claim to be infallible, but hiding under a cover of humility, say that they are really not doing anything other than recognizing what should be obvious to anyone and everyone. This is the way all fundamentalists works, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or of whatever other group. And such people really cannot comprehend that you do not see the "obvious" or "common senese" or "plain" conclusion or fact that they see.

All of this is very attractive to people who are given to extremes, and especially people who wish to see the world in terms of black vs. white, with as little grey in between as possible. Young people, or those new to a group, are the most susceptible, because they lack both the experience and the learning to spot the errors in the fundamentalist mentality. Normally it is both the young and those who are new who have the most mis-placed zeal, and are most able to go astray because of a lack of patience.

Fundamentalism supports the notion that people can know it all and get it all right, with very little effort. Fundamentalism is a prideful pat on the back that says: you really are as smart and right as you think you are, and all those other people who disagree really are wrong and have gone astray. But, where Christian virtue would have us be kind and gentle with those who have gone astray, fundamentalism does the opposite: making people angry and bitter towards those they deem to be wrong. This animosity is sometimes hidden, of course, but it is there nonetheless and will manifest itself eventually.

(An aside--Am I the pot calling the kettle black here? I guess it is. I apologize for this post being hypocritical. It's just something I had to get off my chest. This was, above all, introspective.)

The cure to fundamentalism is reading the Scripture, the Fathers, reading and imitating the Lives of the Saints, going to the services of the Church, participating in the sacraments, loving one another, being humble, doubting one's own opinions, being patient, giving alms, and being open to correction. Above all though, one must be freed from the narrow mindset of fundamentalism, because otherwise all the patristics and scripture readings and whatnot will get filtered through this mindset, and like a funnel will simply lead all the information back into supporting the small set of beliefs focused on by the fundamentalist group.

I think there is a big danger that many are forsaking the fundamentals of Christianity, and love, humility, mercy are very much the fundamentals of Christianity.

Big problem is there are many liberal Christians on the rise, who reject many of the fundamentals of Christianity, but claim the fundamentals such as love, humility and mercy when what they do do is promote pride in sin, love and comfort in sin, yes even mercy on each other, but not as lovingly rebuking, but as we should accept each other as we are, and not seek reformation, not seeking God's way and His authority, but what they say and desire for themselves is o.k. if it makes them happy and doesn't hurt no one else.The Bible is outdated for them, they try to change meanings of words, even church history, introducing sects and practices always forbidden of Christianity.The educated man of the world in his view now convinces so many Christians that they try to introduce it into Christainity.They say if they're not convicted of sin then it's not sin for them, then encouraging all not to be convicted of sin, for the most dangerous sin is one we have trouble giving up, and if someone is offering people a way to keep this sin, then this is lethal and going to appeal to many as it is today.

Sure people have to be convicted of sin, and this is by love not condemnation, but we have see and commit to God's pure ways, if His fundamental teachings are changed and even forsaken to give the sinner a freedom and even encouragement not to be convicted in sin, then all sinners are doomed.His Word should convict us, sure we have to grow, and i believe we even grow in conviction, but if the foundation and teachings which are to help us grow and be convicted of our sinful ways, and grow more in God's, if even these are disgarded then we're not going to be convicted.Sure the Spirit convicts us, but if we forsake all that was taught and delivered to those before us in the Spirit for our learning, then what chance of growth have we in these ways.What chance have we of even wanting them, of even wanting to repent, if they create their own image of God, which has no disgust of their sinful ways.

I've no disagreement and know what you mean when you speak of fundamentalists, i've seen many just viciously condemn, having not the mercy God shows to us shining from them.

The cure for this world is the love shown in Jesus Christ, it is the only way.But both sides lose sight of it, the one forsaking mercy and humility, and the other making us not even worthy of the death Christ took for us.The one forsaking the mercy He showed us, the other taking away that we're even guility of it, making His sacrfice in vain.And even if they admit us sinners, they teach love of us in sin, not that we're not to love sinners in sin, for we are to show them the love that can save us from it and be examples of this, but they teach a love and even comfort of our sinful ways.

Fundamentalism is the right way to go to create the right positions towards contemporary issues,by refering to the true and uncorrupt doctrines. Fundamentalism is to follow the early church, to refer to the way they taught, and how they handled the different issues, and take them as an example. There is a difference between fundamentalism in ideology and in religion. In religion, it is the complete truth and nothing but the truth. In an ideology, it is different, because it has to evolve with time to cope with the ever changing input from the scociety. Not so with the basics of religion (christianity).Even in other religions, I do not object to fundamentalism, I object to the fundamentals.

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

The only thing I disliked about your post, was that i perceived it to be too one-sided at the extreme far left, in my opinion. The main problem I guess being, that you didn’t define fundamentalism for us. However, you did admit this, and you went on to ascribe certain secondary characteristics to "fundamentalism", as if slowly formulating your own conception and definition of it by the end of your post.

I want to briefly ascribe certain secondary characteristics to what I believe fundamentalism to be; a fundamentalism which has its fruits. I would consider the church fathers “fundamentalists” who possessed certain features that your conception of fundamentalism lacks and maybe contradicts, in addition to features that my conception of fundamentalism hold central.

I will basically be reforumalting certain statements you made, according to my own ideology.

Quote

I would say that wherever fundamentalism is, Christian virtues such as humility, soberness, gentleness, patience, non-judgmentalism, love, and so forth are, to a greater or lesser degree, absent or distorted.

I would say that wherever fundamentalism is not, virtues such as the truth, stability, coherence, certainty, direction, unity etc. are likewise to a greater or lesser degree, absent or distorted.

Quote

Fundamentalism, then, is what happens when someone made in the image of God becomes spiritually ill in a rigid and self-righteous way.

Fundamentalism, then, is what happens when someone made in the image of God becomes spiritually aware, stable and focused, without compromising his objectivity, open mindedness or humility.

Quote

The main root of fundamentalism is the mindset: "We're right, you're not."

The main root of fundamentalism is the mindset: “The truth cannot be compromised”

Quote

This mindset is the exact opposite of the patristic view of humility, which teaches us to consider everyone as good as--or better than--we are.

This mindset is evident in the lives of the church fathers, who battled the heretics, ex-communicated, and declared anathemas upon those who were a threat to the one universal apostolic church and the eternal truth of Christ. Firmness is not contrary to humility.

Quote

Fundamentalism has a certain narrowness of vision, an inability to see beyond the limited scope that has been chosen by it's adherents.

Fundamentalism has a wide-scale vision, and a duty to limit the scope for those adherents incapable of discernment.

Quote

Fundamentalism is letting oneself off with the easiest (and many times self-congratulatory) answers.

Fundamentalism is an affirmation that one has the correct (and Christ-glorifying) answers.

Quote

The cure to fundamentalism is reading the Scripture, the Fathers, reading and imitating the Lives of the Saints, going to the services of the Church, participating in the sacraments, loving one another, being humble, doubting one's own opinions, being patient, giving alms, and being open to correction.

The source of fundamentalism, is the scriptures, the fathers, reading and imitating the loves of the Saints. Yet is nothing, without the services of the Church, participating in the sacraments, loving one another, being humble, being patient, giving alms, and being open to correction. (I don’t agree with doubting one’s own opinions - unless this is a result of the last qualifying factor - being open to correction).

Quote

I apologize for this post being hypocritical. It's just something I had to get off my chest. This was, above all, introspective.

Ditto.

Peace.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2005, 12:36:08 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

"Fundamentalism" in the modern sense of the word, as I understand it, has nothing to do with "the fundamentals of the faith", rather, it is the behaviour of those who lack discernment but believe they posses it. In the case of Orthodox Christianity, we sometimes forget that although the Fathers were firm in their convictions, they also had the gift of discernment. When we plant a young fruit tree, we tie it to a pole with soft cord (a woman's nylon stocking works well). We don't use wire which will cut into the tree and wound it. Fundamentalism uses wire to do a job that a woman's stocking would do much better and leads to an abundant yeild of good fruit. The Fundamentalist gardener lacks the discernment to see that although a young tree needs to be firmly supported, it is more harmful to use strong, unyeilding methods to acheive this.An example of the discernment of the Fathers which springs to mind is that of a Hagioritan Father who's gentle demeanour managed to convert a fierce pirate who had attacked the Holy Mountain. The Pirate (an Orthodox Christian) made his confession and was so relieved to hear the words "do not be troubled any more by the evil you have done" after confessing, that he asked to recieve Holy Communion immediatley.. With his gift of discernment, the Father told the ex-pirate to fast every day and come to him to Commune daily for forty days. However, the Father simply administered ordinary, unconsecrated, bread and wine to him each day until the fortieth day when he gave him the Holy Gifts.What makes a Father a Father is discenment. When I lack discernment, but believe I am holding to the "fundamentals" of the faith "without compromise", I am in fact filled with ego without knowing it. When this is the case, I act with disrespect towards even my fellow Christians, and a person who is disrespectful lacks humility. I think this is what Paradosis meant by describing one of the symptoms of fundamentalism as a lack of humility. This lack of humility, I think, stems from a lack of discernment, and leads to an even further lack of discernment. A humble person is logical and rational, an arrogant person is illogical and irrational. If I was living when Christ walked among us, and was one who held to the "fundamentals" of the faith without compromise and wiithout discenment, I would have said that Christ was a heretic and/or a Man of compromise, since one of the fundamentals of the Faith is the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue which came directly from God- to keep the Sabbath Holy by resting, yet He allowed his disciples to reap grain on the Sabbath and said "the Sabbath was made for man's sake, man was not made for the Sabbath". Surely I couldn't be accused of "legalism" in this scenario, since the Law is obvious and indisputable to everyone- God Commanded us to rest on the Sabbath- I am simply keeping the Commandment of God as my forefathers have. The problem is, of course, that I lack the discernment Christ has, and I do not accept His discernment.A person who lacks discernment cannot see that in the example of the Hagiorite Father and the repentant Pirate above, the blessed Father gently and wisely prepared the ex-Pirate for Holy Communion and tended his soul. Instead, they would simply see this as a wicked deception. Both the Hagiorite Father and his undiscerning critics are holding to the fundamentals of Holy Tradition, but the Father is doing it with discernment, whereas the critics are holding to the fundamentals without discernment, so I think the title "Fundamentalist" is quite fitting- in that they hold the "fundamentals" and nothing else, leaving no room for the Gift of discernment.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 08:27:17 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

It is hard to use discernment when no one desires to believe you, even if you are sharing the patristic tradition.

The discernment I'm talking about is a Gift of the Holy Spirit which we should not assume we have.I think perhaps this is why Orthodoxy places so much emphasis on having a Spiritual Father or Mother, so that, we can hear what someone with more experience in the Spiritual life and with the gift of discernment has to say on the issues that we deal with. Rather than assuming that we are speaking from a discerning Patristic position, we should talk with our Spiritual Father or Spiritual Mother, and see what he or she has to say, and what course they would advise us to take. Wisdom is not simply knowledge. We can know alot about the patristic tradition without gaining any of it's wisdom. The Scriptures tell us that "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"- one who fears the Lord is humble, meek doesn't raise his voice or insist that he is correct, and listens more openly to others. In Orthodoxy, being "correct" does not simply mean being "exactly accurate"- this is the mistake of applying modern, empirical, scientific methods to the spiritual. The Church acts both with "akrevia" ("exactness") and "economia" ("dispensation"), whereas, when we lack discernment, we believe we are acting with "akrevia" ("I know what the Fathers taught") and refuse "economia", believing this to be "compromise". In effect, we make the Church out to be an immovable, dead structure made of stone instead of the Living Body of Christ which it is. The Church is a "multi-dimensional", Living Thing. It exists in time, space and Eternity, and is not confined within the pages of books- not even the Canons.The argument which fundamentalists often bring up against this is the fact that Scripture says that "Christ is the same yesterday and today". But what does the Scripture mean by this? Before the Incarnation, Christ did not have a Human Nature, but after the Incarnation, He does. Christ was born as an infant wrapped in swaddling cloths but grew into a adult. Before Christ's Death and Ressurection, Christ's Hands, Feet and Side bore no scars, but since then He carried scars in Them into Eternity so that He could allow the Apostle St. Thomas to touch them. Before the Mystical Supper, all bread and wine was the same, but since then bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. So what does Scripture mean by "Christ is the same yesterday and today..."? Clearly it does not mean in the empirical, scientific sense; therfore, we cannot simply use the empirical, scientific approach to the teachings of the Church as fundamentalists attempt to do.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 08:32:58 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

It is hard to use discernment when no one desires to believe you, even if you are sharing the patristic tradition. I wish I had more humility.

OzGeorge has explained well what is meant by discernment. I would submit that you are "sharing" what you think is patristic tradition, but why should your understanding of it be paramount? There are people on this forum who are seminarians who are learning from teachers with much more experience and knowledge of the patristic writings then (I'm sorry) I think you have.

You did not understand in the context of George's first post here what discernment is. Are there other things that you think you understand but may not? Why should one believe another who has not established that they truly know something and thus can speak/write with authority?

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Dear Ebor,Yes you have. ozgeorge is Australian slang for "George Australia". I was banned from E-cafe recently, and was more recently "unbanned", but have not posted there since.

Oh I know about "Oz" refering to Australia. One of my neighbors is Australian and I've read alot about the country. (I twigged right away who their pet bird, Banjo was named after. ) I thought that it was "GeorgeAustralia", but didn't want to just jump to a conclusion. Nice to see you here.

You were banned?!? I must have missed that (I don't go there everyday) What on earth for? If you prefer to not discuss it, I ask your pardon for asking.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

You were banned?!? I must have missed that (I don't go there everyday) What on earth for?

Well, when someone insisted they had the right to call ROCOR a "whore" because they were using a biblical metaphor, I attempted to illustrate a point by saying that he was talking as though he were some divine oracle- like Balaams's Ass- and asked him to take no offence at my calling him Balaam's Ass since it was a "biblical metaphor". For some reason, the moderators thought that calling someone "Balaam's Ass" was a personal attack. I can't see why...I rather like the story of poor old Balaam's Ass in the bible. Scripture metaphorically calls us sheep, so why we metaphorically be asses? He surely didn't mean to call ROCOR a 'whore' literally, and I didn't call him 'Balaam's Ass' literally...and after all, they are both scriptural aren't they?

George (Australia)

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Well, when someone insisted they had the right to call ROCOR a "whore" because they were using a biblical metaphor,

ERK!! I definitely missed that one. *Cringe*

Quote

I attempted to illustrate a point by saying that he was talking as though he were some divine oracle- like Balaams's Ass- and asked him to take no offence at my calling him Balaam's Ass since it was a "biblical metaphor". For some reason, the moderators thought that calling someone "Balaam's Ass" was a personal attack. I can't see why...I rather like the story of poor old Balaam's Ass in the bible. Scripture metaphorically calls us sheep, so why we metaphorically be asses? He surely didn't mean to call ROCOR a 'whore' literally, and I didn't call him 'Balaam's Ass' literally...and after all, they are both scriptural aren't they?

Well, yes, they are.. Frankly, it sounds to me like they didn't *know* the story of Balaam's Ass, which as you say is a good one, and just knee-jerk reacted. <pinching the bridge of my nose and shaking my head> To sort of quote Professor Kirk in the Narnia books "What are they teaching in the schools?"

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

'Fundamentalism' is fast becoming a metphor for an undesirable religious characteristic. It was originally used to differentiate from religious 'liberalism', the term which was applied to the process of corrupting Scripture. Manipulating word meanings and connotations is an art perfected by Leninists and, especially, by Josef Goebbels not long after. Once a word meaning is distorted, then skillful exploitation of the distortion, 'demonizing' the target group (in this case, Christian Fundamentalists), follows. What worked then will still work, but the present effort can't even be classified as a competent attempt. At least the Third Reich showed some sophistication.....

I'm a Fundamentalist, which means, returning to origins, that I'm simply not a Liberal. And sticks and stones...well, you know the saying. Go cry.

'Fundamentalism' is fast becoming a metphor for an undesirable religious characteristic. It was originally used to differentiate from religious 'liberalism', the term which was applied to the process of corrupting Scripture. Manipulating word meanings and connotations is an art perfected by Leninists and, especially, by Josef Goebbels not long after. Once a word meaning is distorted, then skillful exploitation of the distortion, 'demonizing' the target group (in this case, Christian Fundamentalists), follows. What worked then will still work, but the present effort can't even be classified as a competent attempt. At least the Third Reich showed some sophistication.....

I'm a Fundamentalist, which means, returning to origins, that I'm simply not a Liberal. And sticks and stones...well, you know the saying. Go cry.

On the other hand, word meanings also evolve, which is why a "gentleman" no longer refers to a man possessing a coat of arms and instead describes someone well-mannered. As the saying goes, never attribute an act to malice when ignorance (or in this case, the ravages of time) will suffice.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2005, 11:37:55 PM by Veniamin »

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Fundamentalist rarely means someone who holds to the fundamentals. One group of fundamentalists I know include among their doctrines:

- The Church started in mid-Acts, when St. Paul was converted- The Gospels, and certain other parts of the NT are not for us, but will be used by people again at the end of time- Hate is good. Seriously. It's good to hate people. The Bible says so.- Judging is good. Being called a "King of judgment" is a compliment. It's good to mock, to ridicule, etc.- Trinity? No such thing!- Scripture? They will decide which books are Scripture!- God does not have perfect foreknowledge. Come on, the Old Testament said that God repented. It says it, they believe it.- Homosexuals should be put to death. The Old Testament says so.- Those who get divorced shouldn't be as severely punished as the Bible says though, because this groups leader was divorced. We are in the period of grace, not law. But hey, all that other law stuff, like killing homosexuals, can stay.

Would you like more doctrines/thoughts from this group that not only identifies itself as fundamentalist, but which everyone else identifies as fundamentalist?

Hi,I had meant to write a new post on Fundamentalism, but it got lost, and then I came across this old one. I think some of the posts are pretty accurate, I wanted to see if anyone today had any thoughts on the subject. I will write more later

Fundamentalist rarely means someone who holds to the fundamentals. One group of fundamentalists I know include among their doctrines:

- The Church started in mid-Acts, when St. Paul was converted- The Gospels, and certain other parts of the NT are not for us, but will be used by people again at the end of time- Hate is good. Seriously. It's good to hate people. The Bible says so.- Judging is good. Being called a "King of judgment" is a compliment. It's good to mock, to ridicule, etc.- Trinity? No such thing!- Scripture? They will decide which books are Scripture!- God does not have perfect foreknowledge. Come on, the Old Testament said that God repented. It says it, they believe it.- Homosexuals should be put to death. The Old Testament says so.- Those who get divorced shouldn't be as severely punished as the Bible says though, because this groups leader was divorced. We are in the period of grace, not law. But hey, all that other law stuff, like killing homosexuals, can stay.

Would you like more doctrines/thoughts from this group that not only identifies itself as fundamentalist, but which everyone else identifies as fundamentalist?